Daric Barton

by The Ol Goaler on Aug 24, 2005 12:49 PM EDT Comment 9 comments

I read on this site and others throughout the blogosphere much wailing, cries of woe, and (figurative) gnashing of teeth over the fact that the Cardinals gave up Daric Barton in the Mark Mulder trade. Now, I'm not here to make any comments about Barton's bat so far as a minor-leaguer, nor his projection as a major-league hitter. Suffice it to say, he's been a very good hitter to this point in his career, and may well become an outstanding major league hitter.

Having said that, I have just one question for those who claim the Cards never should have included him in the Mulder deal...

Had Barton remained with the Cardinals' organization, WHERE WOULD HE PLAY???

He was signed as a catcher, and has moved to first base (and DH) with the A's organization. The current catcher, Yadier Molina, is 23 years old. He supplanted a three-time Gold Glove winner (Mike Matheny) largely because of Yadi's own defense. While Molina's offensive numbers will most probably never compare to Barton's, that point is moot... the Cardinals want the "D" from their catchers first, and any offensive output they get from them is gravy. If Barton is going to be as good with the bat as many think, it would be foolish to have him be the "backup" catcher behind Molina.

The Cardinals' first baseman is 25-year-old Albert Pujols. He ain't going anywhere. (Remember the elbow problem AP had in left field a couple years ago?)

It's doubtful Barton has the speed to play in the outfield, and he would be blocked at third base by an All-Star with a long-term contract, as well.

So, to get a lefthanded starter for the top of the rotation, the Cards gave up a promising young starter, a middle reliever, and... a guy who would have had to find a position in the major leagues, in a league without the benefit of a DH... a guy they wouldn't be able to use, anyway!

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

good points OG

...and I gotta hand it to ya, your faith in Mulder is finally rubbing off on me. He still looks like he's one bad pitch from disaster, but those night game outings lately have been incredible.

by rockin redbird on Aug 24, 2005 1:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

two options

one, they could have made him a outfielder. if adam dunn can play left, so can daric barton.

two, they could have traded more productively. haren-calero for mulder would have been a fair trade; the a's cut salary and add potential; the cards get a proven veteran with playoff experience.

but that means they basically gave daric barton away for free.

that's not to "rip" jocketty, nor to wail gnash teeth etc. it's simply stating a fact; this was a bad trade. all organizations make them; the smart ones learn from the mistake and don't repeat it.

but if you're not willing to admit the mistake . . . how can you learn the lesson?

by lboros on Aug 24, 2005 3:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Here's where you and I disagree...

IF (and I freely admit I have no "inside" information) the Cards' front office/farm system decided last season (prior to the trade) that Barton could not play the outfield (even as adaquately as Dunn/Greg Luzinski/Dmitiri Young/ et al.,) then (no matter how promising a hitting prospect Barton may be) he becomes a future trading chip, rather than a future prospect for the Cardinals. That would be the case whether the Cards try to trade for Mulder or not last offseason.

I admit, that "IF" looms large... but if Barton is a future trading chip, then why not trade him now, to get the "final" piece to a playoff-ready pitching staff?

While Mulder's peripherals don't scream "ACE!" to the SABR-savvy, he still has a 3.74 ERA in 168.3 innings pitched, and 10 win shares according to The Hardball Times.

Even though the Cards squandered too many opportunities offensively last night, I never felt the game was in danger, the way Mulder was pitching.

It's my suspicion that the disappointment in Mulder in some quarters (and I'm not directing this specifically at you, Larry) is because he doesn't strike out many. Chicks may dig the longball, but both scouts and statheads dig the strikeout.

If Mark Mulder is the spiritual successor to John Tudor, that's fine with me! Did we give up too much? Not if the Cards come home with the WS championship. I think it was Bill Veeck who said, "A pennant is worth five years of development."

by The Ol Goaler on Aug 24, 2005 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

barton/calero

I don't think it's fair to say that the Cardinals "gave Daric Barton away for free." As the price for trading Mulder or Hudson, Billy Beane required the Cardinals to give up Haren (to fill the vacated spot in the rotation) and Barton, so Haren-Calero was not even an option (although they could have been option in a better deal with another team). If anything, Calero should be viewed as the freebie throw-in. Not to say that even Haren-Barton only would have been worth it, but I think Walt could have probably gotten that deal without throwing in Kiko.

by holden on Aug 25, 2005 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the playoffs will tell all

if mulder pitches well in the playoffs, the trade is defensible.

two reasons for the focus on strikeouts. one is a deep body of sabermetric research (by bill james, voros mccracken, and lots of others) which shows that pitchers who fall below a certain strikeout threshold are not effective in the long run. there are execeptions, but very few of them. because mulder is well below that strikeout threshold (roughly 4.5 ks per 9 innings), it's hard to trust his success; experience tells us that before long he's likely to go the way of bob tewksbury.

the second point (related to the 1st) is that strikeouts are a measure of dominance. when batters can't even put the ball in play against you, it means you must be pitching pretty damn effectively. and you don't have to be a flamethrower; john tudor used to strike guys out at twice the rate mulder does because he could change speeds and pitch to zones. greg maddux has done much the same thing throughout his career.

mulder doesn't really change speeds, and altho he has been pitching inside more often (and it has made a big difference) he pretty much lives in one zone: the outside corner. when hitters adjust to him and lay off the outside stuff, he is out of tricks.

if we win the world series and mulder helps, it will make the trade look less disadvantageous. but if we don't win, or if mulder isn't a factor . . . . we'll talk again in two years and see how the trade appears then.

by lboros on Aug 24, 2005 5:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

true...

the real test of the trade will come in playoffs and, hopefully, WS. If Mulder comes thru those with flying colors, I'll happily savor a giant dish of crow for every doubting word I've written. His wins lately make me a whole lot more confident in him, but I'll still be on the edge of my seat when he takes the hill in october (though that'll be true for me of every playoff/WS game anyway).

by rockin redbird on Aug 24, 2005 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My thoughts

I think Oakland definitely got the better deal, but what we're concerned with is whether it was a good deal for the Cardinals. I'm really not sure, but I lean to thinking that it was worth it. As noted before, I'm not very knowledgeable about baseball, but I tend to think that Mulder is better than what we're currently thinking.

What I really want to know, however, is two things. First, how would we feel about Mulder if we ignored his day starts? Would he then be the pitcher we'd hoped he'd be? Secondly, what are the primary causes for pitching bad during day games? Mulder seems to have pitched well in day games in past years. Would it be possible to fix the problem with day games?

Lboros, thanks for the information on why strikeouts are a big deal to statheads. That's the stuff I hope to learn while visiting this forum. I tend to think that statheads place a little more emphasis on strikeouts than they should, but then I'm still learning. With that little bit of information, I now understand why statheads make such a big deal out of strikeouts.

by rob is back on Aug 25, 2005 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bad Trade

Lboros is right . . .we could have gotten more that what we did. Is Mulder really that much better than Haren right now . . I am off the ilk you would have put Barton in LF and live with Manny-like defense at the worst OR trade him (a top 5 prospect), a great reliever, and a #2/3 starter for a lights-out ace - not a maybe ace. Look, Jocketty still has done a great job but I think he missed on this one. If we can ink Mulder to a longer term deal at a reasonable rate and run him, Carpenter, and hopefully Reyes out there then we should be flexible enough to buy a good outfielder.

by nimbus74 on Aug 25, 2005 9:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs